In the last week of September President M. Shahabuddin urged the Bangladesh Information Commission and other public and private organizations to take more initiatives to raise awareness about the Right to Information Act (RTI) to ensure the proper implementation. This was done to mark the “international Right to Information Day, 2024”.
The President also expressed hope that people’s empowerment over government and social institutions would be strengthened through the united efforts of all in removing existing barriers to the Act’s implementation. This was done to underline that it is the democratic right of the people to access information, as it empowers them and helps in making informed decisions.
Bangladesh drew the attention of the democratic world when we approved in our Jatiyo Sangshad our Right to Information Act in 2009. It enabled us to demonstrate our commitment towards not only transparency but also accountability in the paradigm of good governance. The Act itself had several innovative aspects. However, there were also some other areas that became the source of controversy. Many analysts feel that they needed to be addressed.
This debate has been going on for some time. There have been discussions pertaining to different facets.
Nevertheless, one needs to see how developments in this regard have taken place in Finland. That country has been taking some innovative steps with regard to the implementation process of the Right to Information over the last few decades.
In Finland, the Act on the Openness of Public Documents of 1951 established the openness of all records and documents in the possession of officials of the state, municipalities, and registered religious communities. Exceptions to the basic principle could only be made by law, or by an executive order for specific enumerated reasons such as national security.
The openness of unsigned draft documents was not mandated, but up to the consideration of the public official. This weakness of the law was removed when the law was revised in the 1990s. The revised law, the Act on the Openness of Government Activities of 1999, called in short "Publicity Act" also extended the principle of openness to corporations that perform legally mandated public duties, such as pension funds and public utilities, and to computer documents.
After receiving any request, the authority has two weeks to give the document. If the decision is negative, and document is withheld, the requester may appeal to the administrative court. The document may be given orally, for reading and copying in the authority's premises or as an electronic or paper copy, as requested by the person. However, the copying may be declined if it would be unfeasible because of the large number of documents or otherwise technically difficult. There are also a number of limitations on the release of electronic documents designed for the protection of individual privacy.
The reasons for withholding a document are listed in the Article 24 of the Act referred to above. They may be grouped to three categories: automatic non-openness, conditional non openness or conditional openness. In the third category, openness is a rule, and the reason for non-openness needs to be established by the authority.
The absolute reasons for non-openness are – (a) documents of the Foreign Policy committee of the Council of State- foreign policy memos of the foreign ministry on political status, negotiations with foreign governments or organizations and diplomatic cryptograms, unless released by the ministry; (b) registers held by law enforcement for investigation and prevention of crimes, as well as passport or ID card photos and biometric information on them; (c) statistics and other documents on economic policy that might affect financial markets, until they are released to public; (d) documents containing a secret phone number, or the location of a mobile communications device, and (e) documents containing information on individual's political opinions, hobbies, personal habits, membership and activities in associations, family life or opinions uttered within private life.
Conditional non-openness is mandated for the following categories of documents: -
· Documents concerning criminal investigations or pending prosecutions until the investigation is over or the prosecution has pleaded, unless it is obviously clear that the investigation or the prosecution is not harmed and no private person will suffer material harm nor suffering,
· Documents on security of buildings, facilities, communications or information systems, unless it is obviously clear that the security is not endangered,
· Documents concerning national defence or military intelligence, unless it is obviously clear that national defence is in no way harmed or endangered, and
· Documents concerning a refugee or an applicant for a visa, residence permit or an asylum, unless it is obviously clear that the person or his loved ones are not harmed.
Conditional openness is prescribed for the following categories of information:
· Release of information about the technical and tactical methods of police, and prison authorities, if such availability of information makes the work of such authorities more difficult,
· Information on financial, monetary, labour or fiscal policy measures or their preparations or pre-studies if the release would defeat the purpose of such measures, endanger the negotiation position of the state or otherwise and cause great harm to the management of such policies,
· Detailed returns of political candidates on their campaign funding,
· Documents used by a public body in a collective bargaining or labour action if the release would harm the public body as the employer, and
· Documents used for preparation of a legal action, if the release would harm a public body as a party to a suit.
Non-open information in Finland also remains non-open for 25 years after it was created or obtained by an authority. Documents that are non-open to protect the privacy of an individual remain non-open for 50 years after the protected individual has died.
If information is still, after 25 years, valid and pertains to the security measures of a building, facility, system or method or it is still part of a plan used for national defence or civil defence, it remains non-open as long as the information is pertinent for the purpose.
The non-openness of other documents may be prolonged up to 55 years by the Council of State, if necessary, to safeguard a protected interest.
The above changes that have been undertaken in Finland could provide the requisite platform in the undertaking by our relevant authorities of a review of the various facets of our own Right to Information Act, 2009.
This will be particularly relevant with regard to Sections- 7, 8, 9 and 32 of our existing Act.
Iftekharuzzaman, Executive Director of Transparency International Bangladesh has also significantly addressed another dimension. He has pointed out that there is also need for nonpartisan recruitment of required officials to work in the Information Commission who should desist from treating information as their personal asset. He has insisted that all information belongs to the people- despite the fact that in many countries in Europe, some States in the USA and also in several countries in Southeast Asia and Far East- this format unfortunately is not always followed.
Nevertheless, he has correctly underlined that freedom of speech, the right to dissent and the free flow of information are essential elements for upholding transparent and accountable good governance as associated with democracy.
(Muhammad Zamir, a former Ambassador, is an analyst specialized in foreign affairs, right to information and good governance, can be reached at <muhammadzamir0@gmail.com>)
